More evidence links a family of insecticides to bee colony collapse

In the US and Europe, honey bees that pollinate one-third of our crops are …

For nearly six years, a mysterious condition called colony collapse disorder (CCD) has been wreaking havoc with the honey bee population in the US and Europe. The cause of CCD remains elusive, with various fingers being pointed at mites, fungi, viruses, pesticides, and even cell phone emissions. Today, a pair of studies were published in Science that suggest that sublethal exposure to a family of common pesticides called neonicotinoids might play a contributing role in the great bee die-off.

Neonicotinoids are a relatively new family of insecticides. They work by switching receptors for a neurotransmitter (nAChRs) to the on state, causing paralysis and death in insects. They work in a similar manner to nerve gases like sarin (sarin prevents the transmitter from being broken down in the synaptic junction, causing a similar hyperactivation). Neonicotinoids are less toxic to mammals than insects, and as such rapidly gained favor for use in agriculture, where they're widely used to treat seeds. The insecticide diffuses throughout the plant as it grows, appearing in the pollen and nectar, which foraging honey bees collect and bring back to their hives.

The first study, from a team of French researchers, looked at the effect on honey bees of sublethal exposure to a neonicotinoid called thiamethoxam. They hypothesized that sublethal neonicotinoid exposure affects the bees' homing ability, which indirectly contributes to hive mortality. This hypothesis was based on previous studies, which showed that sublethal doses of neonicotinoids affect behavior in bees.

To test whether they were right, they tagged honey bees with RFID chips and gave them a treat—20 µl of a sucrose solution. Unfortunately for half the bees, their sucrose solution also contained 1.34 ng of thiamethoxam, a dose much smaller than the one need to cause significant lethality in bees. RFID readers on the hive entrances tracked the bees as they returned from the field, and mortality due to homing failure was calculated as the proportion of returning treated bees to returning control bees.

Since the researchers were interested in the effect of thiamethoxam on homing ability, they released some bees in a field that the bees had been in before, and released others in sites that the bees may or may not have previously visited. Mortality was much higher in the treated bees compared to their controls, and was higher in bees released in unfamiliar sites (31.6 percent) than familiar sites (10.2 percent).

The second study was conducted by a group from the UK. They looked at the effect of imidacloprid, the most widely used neonicotinoid, on bumble bees. Seventy five bumble bee colonies were split into three groups. The control group were fed pollen and sugar water for 14 days, and then placed in a field and left to forage for six weeks. A second group were treated with a relatively low dose of imidacloprid (6 µg/kg in pollen and 0.7 µg/kg in sugar water), with the third group receiving twice as much imidacloprid.

The colonies were weighed before being placed in the field, and then weekly once in the field. (The weight of the colony provides a general measure of its health, since it includes stored honey, immature bees, etc.) Both high and low treatment group colonies gained less weight than the control colonies during the six weeks in the field, although there was no significant difference between the two imidacloprid-treated groups.

Back in the US, commercial bee keepers and environmental groups have petitioned the EPA to ban another neonicotinoid, clothianidin; France, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia have already banned or limited the use of these insecticides. The EPA considered taking action back in 2010, but declined to do so at the time, leading to accusations that the agency approved clothianidin based in part on a fraudulent study conducted by Bayer, its manufacturer.

Who would like to place a bet that 1 or more companies has known about this for a while...

If like at the end of the article states, Bayer (the manufacturer) conducted a fraudulent study, then it would seem to point to the fact Bayer must have known something wasn't on the level with it.

Also, if the neonicotinoids "diffuses throughout the plant as it grows, appearing in the pollen and nectar", then really, what did they expect would happen? Or did Bayer just sweep it under the carpet as too small a dose to do any lasting or long term damage?

If this is a confirmed finding, they need to ban this stuff ASAP. Honeybees are absolutely critical for both agriculture and a huge number of plants.

Best way to start it to only buy food that doesn't use these chemicals. They only reason they use it now is it makes them more profit. Remove the motivation, remove the problem

Except that people are either stupid, ignorant, misled or just don't give a fk about nothing. Arsians understand the basic concept of supply and demand and what it could do in this and so many other areas critical to society and mankind but the rest of the world, not so much. It never is totally black or white either.

If this is a confirmed finding, they need to ban this stuff ASAP. Honeybees are absolutely critical for both agriculture and a huge number of plants.

Best way to start it to only buy food that doesn't use these chemicals. They only reason they use it now is it makes them more profit. Remove the motivation, remove the problem

Except that people are either stupid, ignorant, misled or just don't give a fk about nothing. Arsians understand the basic concept of supply and demand and what it could do in this and so many other areas critical to society and mankind but the rest of the world, not so much. It never is totally black or white either.

Maybe so, I agree most people are ignorant, but the least we can do is patronize companies who are environmentally responsible.

All their GM crops are basically genetically engineering to be able to withstand their harsh pesticides.

No fucking thought for anything else.

Twats

Surprised we don't get more articles on GMO, which is the biggest threat to our health IMHO

Actually GMO is one of the biggest positive promises for our health. It's a tool, and a very useful and valuable one. Pretending that instances of it being used poorly means the whole thing has to be thrown out is monstrously stupid.

Actually identifying what really is the "biggest thread to our health" involves first defining the group you mean by "our" and only gets harder after that. If we're talking the First World in general, antibiotic resistance is probably up there, although so would be issues like obesity which is involved in a host of other first and higher order risks later on and has complex causes of its own. Certain First World countries in particular may have bigger or smaller issues, such as in America with its inexplicit Universal Health Care.

On the other hand, in the Third World micronutrient deficiency (and the even more obvious macronutrient deficiency) may outweigh most other health issues combined, and that's an area where GMOs have tremendous potential.

This isn't new information - back during the huge WikiLeaks scandal where all those US Govt docs were leaked, there was one that said that the EPA knew about this and was helping the pesticide companies involved hide this information. I guess the pesticide is also being used outside the US now, too. Sad.

Here's another reason to despise such companies: I read that in order to do any independent research on their crops (or other similar companies' crops), one must sign a contract with them. The contract specifies that you cannot publish your research until they review it first and allow to publish it.

Basically - can't do research on their IP-protected crops or they sue you, can't publish results without their permission, or they sue you.

Actually GMO is one of the biggest positive promises for our health. It's a tool, and a very useful and valuable one. Pretending that instances of it being used poorly means the whole thing has to be thrown out is monstrously stupid.

Actually identifying what really is the "biggest thread to our health" involves first defining the group you mean by "our" and only gets harder after that. If we're talking the First World in general, antibiotic resistance is probably up there, although so would be issues like obesity which is involved in a host of other first and higher order risks later on and has complex causes of its own. Certain First World countries in particular may have bigger or smaller issues, such as in America with its inexplicit Universal Health Care.

On the other hand, in the Third World micronutrient deficiency (and the even more obvious macronutrient deficiency) may outweigh most other health issues combined, and that's an area where GMOs have tremendous potential.

"clothianidin, which is designed to be absorbed by plant tissue and released in pollen and nectar to kill pests"

That's from the Wired article about leaked EPA documents. Sounds like exactly the sort of chemical that would have an adverse effect on bees. I think it would be very interesting to know what the EPA officials who approved clothianidin are doing now. I'm guessing that some of them are paid lobbyists for Bayer.

All their GM crops are basically genetically engineering to be able to withstand their harsh pesticides.

No fucking thought for anything else.

Twats

Surprised we don't get more articles on GMO, which is the biggest threat to our health IMHO

Actually GMO is one of the biggest positive promises for our health. It's a tool, and a very useful and valuable one. Pretending that instances of it being used poorly means the whole thing has to be thrown out is monstrously stupid.

Actually identifying what really is the "biggest thread to our health" involves first defining the group you mean by "our" and only gets harder after that. If we're talking the First World in general, antibiotic resistance is probably up there, although so would be issues like obesity which is involved in a host of other first and higher order risks later on and has complex causes of its own. Certain First World countries in particular may have bigger or smaller issues, such as in America with its inexplicit Universal Health Care.

On the other hand, in the Third World micronutrient deficiency (and the even more obvious macronutrient deficiency) may outweigh most other health issues combined, and that's an area where GMOs have tremendous potential.

Are you blind?

Monsanto gives free sacks of GMO seeds to a starving African village, and gets a nice writeoff on their taxes.

Villagers have food for one season.

But LO! These seeds aren't ordinary seeds. You see, Monsantostein adult GMO plants do not produce seeds the villagers can plant to get next years' crop.

Oh no.

They need to get more sacks of GMO seeds. From Monsanto.

Second year's sacks of seed are NOT free. The villagers need to BUY them. They can't afford to buy them.

Monsanto has sued (AND WON) lawsuits against farmers whose crops have ACCIDENTALLY been crosspolinated with the GMO crops from the next field over.

I see some of the hatred and shock-fist-shaking -- but you do realize that Neonicotinoid is a synthetic derivative of Nicotine and is considered an "Organic Pesticide". While every speaks of "Going organic" as the saving grace for the honey bee, it's likely that the over use of this as a pesticide in increased organic farming has had a deleterious effect.

Patronizing "environmentally friendly" companies only works insofar as knowledge about these organic pesticides, many of the "environmentally friendly" companies were using synthetic/organic pesticides in order to maintain their friendliness.

Wow talk about leaping without looking. Studies say "might".....Ars posters, "The world is collapsing, damn those evil folks who did this ". There have been so many "causes" fingered as the culprit, maybe we should wait and see if these results stand?

Surprised we don't get more articles on GMO, which is the biggest threat to our health IMHOActually GMO is one of the biggest positive promises for our health. It's a tool, and a very useful and valuable one. Pretending that instances of it being used poorly means the whole thing has to be thrown out is monstrously stupid.

Actually identifying what really is the "biggest thread to our health" involves first defining the group you mean by "our" and only gets harder after that. If we're talking the First World in general, antibiotic resistance is probably up there, although so would be issues like obesity which is involved in a host of other first and higher order risks later on and has complex causes of its own. Certain First World countries in particular may have bigger or smaller issues, such as in America with its inexplicit Universal Health Care.

On the other hand, in the Third World micronutrient deficiency (and the even more obvious macronutrient deficiency) may outweigh most other health issues combined, and that's an area where GMOs have tremendous potential.

Agreed. Mass starvation is a far bigger problem than who pissed in who's cornflakes.

The second half of Penn and Teller's Bullshit epesode: Eat This! (s1, e11) is largly on this topic should anyone want to get riled up.

Who would like to place a bet that 1 or more companies has known about this for a while...

If like at the end of the article states, Bayer (the manufacturer) conducted a fraudulent study, then it would seem to point to the fact Bayer must have known something wasn't on the level with it.

Also, if the neonicotinoids "diffuses throughout the plant as it grows, appearing in the pollen and nectar", then really, what did they expect would happen? Or did Bayer just sweep it under the carpet as too small a dose to do any lasting or long term damage?

Good news is that "Neonicotinoids are less toxic to mammals than insects". Not non toxic, who knows what long term effects could be to exposure, but then it's just people's health.

All their GM crops are basically genetically engineering to be able to withstand their harsh pesticides.

No fucking thought for anything else.

Twats

Surprised we don't get more articles on GMO, which is the biggest threat to our health IMHO

Actually GMO is one of the biggest positive promises for our health. It's a tool, and a very useful and valuable one. Pretending that instances of it being used poorly means the whole thing has to be thrown out is monstrously stupid.

Actually identifying what really is the "biggest thread to our health" involves first defining the group you mean by "our" and only gets harder after that. If we're talking the First World in general, antibiotic resistance is probably up there, although so would be issues like obesity which is involved in a host of other first and higher order risks later on and has complex causes of its own. Certain First World countries in particular may have bigger or smaller issues, such as in America with its inexplicit Universal Health Care.

On the other hand, in the Third World micronutrient deficiency (and the even more obvious macronutrient deficiency) may outweigh most other health issues combined, and that's an area where GMOs have tremendous potential.

Are you blind?

Monsanto gives free sacks of GMO seeds to a starving African village, and gets a nice writeoff on their taxes.

Villagers have food for one season.

But LO! These seeds aren't ordinary seeds. You see, Monsantostein adult GMO plants do not produce seeds the villagers can plant to get next years' crop.

Oh no.

They need to get more sacks of GMO seeds. From Monsanto.

Second year's sacks of seed are NOT free. The villagers need to BUY them. They can't afford to buy them.

Monsanto has sued (AND WON) lawsuits against farmers whose crops have ACCIDENTALLY been crosspolinated with the GMO crops from the next field over.

Man fuck them.

I think xoa's point was that GMOs aren't limited to patent-protected crops of the kind produced by Monsanto. The technology has a wide range of extremely useful and valuable applications, ranging from transgenic insulin-producing bacteria to human gene therapy to golden rice.

Hasn't the possibility of insecticides killing beneficial insects always been an issue? How is that supposed to be dealt with? Insecticide manufacturers just want to make money, so they'll say anything. Who is watching over them?

All their GM crops are basically genetically engineering to be able to withstand their harsh pesticides.

No fucking thought for anything else.

Twats

Surprised we don't get more articles on GMO, which is the biggest threat to our health IMHO

Actually GMO is one of the biggest positive promises for our health. It's a tool, and a very useful and valuable one. Pretending that instances of it being used poorly means the whole thing has to be thrown out is monstrously stupid.

Actually identifying what really is the "biggest thread to our health" involves first defining the group you mean by "our" and only gets harder after that. If we're talking the First World in general, antibiotic resistance is probably up there, although so would be issues like obesity which is involved in a host of other first and higher order risks later on and has complex causes of its own. Certain First World countries in particular may have bigger or smaller issues, such as in America with its inexplicit Universal Health Care.

On the other hand, in the Third World micronutrient deficiency (and the even more obvious macronutrient deficiency) may outweigh most other health issues combined, and that's an area where GMOs have tremendous potential.

Are you blind?

Monsanto gives free sacks of GMO seeds to a starving African village, and gets a nice writeoff on their taxes.

Villagers have food for one season.

But LO! These seeds aren't ordinary seeds. You see, Monsantostein adult GMO plants do not produce seeds the villagers can plant to get next years' crop.

Oh no.

They need to get more sacks of GMO seeds. From Monsanto.

Second year's sacks of seed are NOT free. The villagers need to BUY them. They can't afford to buy them.

Monsanto has sued (AND WON) lawsuits against farmers whose crops have ACCIDENTALLY been crosspolinated with the GMO crops from the next field over.

Man fuck them.

That's a problem with Monsanto, not with the entire idea of GMO. We've been genetically modifying plants for agriculture for thousands of years.

Prefacing the rest of your post: it doesn't actually address my point at all. It simply comes across as you seeing "GMO" and lashing out blindly and with little direction or thought, instead merely posting a hodge podge of fact and myth. The central point, that we don't throw out valuable tools that have bad uses but rather regulate said use, is something you don't even touch.

Dilbert wrote:

Monsanto gives free sacks of GMO seeds to a starving African village, and gets a nice writeoff on their taxes.

Villagers have food for one season.

But LO! These seeds aren't ordinary seeds. You see, Monsantostein adult GMO plants do not produce seeds the villagers can plant to get next years' crop.

Citation very much needed. To the best of my knowledge there has still been zero, I repeat zero commercialization of "Terminator" (genetic use restriction technology [GURT]) anywhere. My understanding is that the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity moratorium (Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) on not merely commercialization but all field testing remains in effect after being reaffirmed in 2006, and that additionally major governments (including India and Brazil) have instituted blanket bans. I can see that other countries have worked to undermine the moratorium, so I'd be curious if they were successful, but so far I have failed to find any indication that it was rescinded (there is a lot of information to sort through, much of it from highly dubious if not clearly crazy sources).

At any rate you made the assertion that GURT-utilizing GMO crops were produced and distributed in this way. Support it with something credible (a major newspaper like the NY Times or BBC would work).